• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Remember the Obama AG who did not prosecute any Bush officials or Wall Street leaders?

Athanasius68 said:
As Mueller reiterated during his Congressional testimony, it was not the OLC guidelines which controlled the decision about not indicting.
Click to expand...

That's the opposite of what he said, with the slight change that the guideline prevent him from deciding whether he would indict. If his laying out the elements of proving several trump crimes step by step in great detail, which 1000 Justice officials said were indictable, isn't enough for you, and as a cult member, it's not. If trump confessed, you'd say he was innocent.

The indictment on Cohen was not binding on Trump; what may be illegal for the former may not be illegal for the latter.
Click to expand...

You don't realize the irony of your statement.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The distance isn't what matters. The obstruction theory by Mueller is that Trump cannot intervene in an investigation and prosecution.
Click to expand...

It's like arguing a space launch with someone who says flight is impossible. Done wasting my time.
 
Craig234 said:
That's the opposite of what he said, with the slight change that the guideline prevent him from deciding whether he would indict. If his laying out the elements of proving several trump crimes step by step in great detail, which 1000 Justice officials said were indictable, isn't enough for you, and as a cult member, it's not. If trump confessed, you'd say he was innocent.



You don't realize the irony of your statement.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he said; I linked to it yesterday.

The obstruction allegations are theoretical, and are quite weak.
 
Athanasius68 said:
And who would make the decision that former president Trump is "whipping people up" and then decide is time to prosecute?
Click to expand...

He does.
If he's out doing rallies talking about whoever is in the White House or Congress in general continuing to divide the country.
 
upsideguy said:
You can prosecute and then negotiate a pardon deal that includes the sits down and shuts up.
Click to expand...

I guess that's a possibility......and its fine just another norm broken that's something he's good at.
 
Bullseye said:
Gotta have something TO PROSECUTE first. So far the left is batting 0 for Trump's term in that regard.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Trump's business activities, profiteering off of his office, etc.

there's plenty, it's just not worth it. And it reeks of authoritarianism.
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. Trump's business activities, profiteering off of his office, etc.

there's plenty, it's just not worth it. And it reeks of authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

The left has nothing on Trump. If they did, he would be long gone.

Trump is merely trying to rebuild the nation and clean up the MESS that Obama left him.

I don't know how well we can trust Holder, he has been known to lie under oath.

Also, he was the first sitting member of a presidents cabinet to be held in criminal contempt for failing to disclose documents related to fast and furious.

Then Obama stepped in and protected him further. The two are think as thieves.

On June 28, 2012, Holder became the first U.S. Attorney General in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt. He was held, by a bipartisan vote, in contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255–67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure, 2 Republicans voting against the measure.

1180ad6fd7c942f13c9a0c66d6bfd525.jpg
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. Trump's business activities, profiteering off of his office, etc.

there's plenty, it's just not worth it. And it reeks of authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
Yaaawwnnnnn. You guys keep blabbering that SOS but it's mostly loony lib urban legends. He was in business for decades before he was elected and nothing happened. So how does his goal of reducing regulations and reducing taxes point to authoritarianism. I'd say that arrow points squarely at the loony left and the quest to control every aspect of our lives.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He never advised not to do it. He said there are dangers associated with it that must be carefully considered. And he's right.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, his comments imply advising not to do it. If you're about to swallow a pill someone at a party gave you, and your friend says, 'you should be careful about that', are they just saying 'consider it', or are they advising you not to do it?
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, I just read Holder's comments (yeah, I know, that's the first thing I should have done), and what he said doesn't match the reason I gave him for cautioning against prosecuting an ex-President. Holder's position is basically that it would be traumatizing to the country. It's certainly possible to make a bad argument leading to an arguably sensible conclusion, and this is one of those cases.

To Holder, I would say that it's the Trump Presidency that was traumatizing to the country, and that letting him get away with breaking numerous laws makes a laughingstock of the notion we all hold that the President isn't above the law. It also sets the precedent that the White House is carte blanche to be a criminal.
Click to expand...

Ready, Fire, Aim...

You go, Cardinal! There is a job for you at the NYT.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Exactly, if we prosecute Trump then later maybe they prosecute Biden after leaves office. This is exactly what happens in many developing countries. If you lose an election you need to flee the country before you're arrested.

I just want Trump out of office. I don't care if he's prosecuted. I can accept that he will get away with some crimes.

I can't deny it would be great to see this...

C7V0HNMVAAAI3j_.jpg


sadly, this would damage our democracy.
Click to expand...

Too late! You libs have already done the damage.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The only way to prosecute the crimes presently alleged of Trump is to concede that a president has the right to do that which he is being prosecuted.
Which makes the prosecution pointless-- and political.

The closing by the SDNY of the campaign finance has to do with the impossibility of proving it against Trump.
Click to expand...

You first statement is nonsensical. I have no idea what you are trying say: to prosecute means you have to concede that he has the right to commit obstruction of justice? You are going to have to explain that one.

He wasn't prosecuted because the DoJ doesn't believe in prosecuting a sitting president as it would interfere with his job and thus compromise the security of the US (I don't happen to agree with that, but it is what it is). That doesn't mean a president is immune from the crimes he may have committed in the conduct of the job, he just faces the music later.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

That said, 1000 ex-DoJ prosecutors said that his actions rose to the standard of a prosecutable crime.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS - DOJ Alumni Statement - Medium

Citizen Trump can be prosecuted. Mueller even told congress that Trump is fair game upon exiting the office.

Obstruction of justice: Mueller said Trump can be charged with obstruction after he leaves office. What is the statute of limitations on potential charges against Trump? - CBS News

That said, being prosecuted does not deprive you of your defenses. Though they seem pretty shallow, what you are suggesting are is defenses in a prosecution, not his exemption from a prosecution. In short, let him tell it to judge.

You second statement is a complete leap of logic. The case was shut down under mysterious circumstances. You are creating your own "because".... but its your creation. The fact remains he was named as an indicted co-conspirator in a case that the other co-conspirator is serving time. Again, the DoJ won't prosecute a sitting president. I am not talking about prosecuting a sitting president, I am talking about prosecution citizen Trump.

Why no hush-money charges against Trump? Feds are silent

So, we have heard your "thoughts" on this matter. I have produced evidence to back up my thoughts. I demand you do that same. I am not interesting in debating someone who's thoughts on the matter are created in his head, which from this vantage points seems more like wishful thinking on your part than anything else. You have something you can teach me, I will listen, but I want third-party expert opinion to back it up.
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
You have already convinced China and our other enemies to wait Trump out in the hope of getting another Obama style weak president who will let China steal American jobs while the MSM looks the other way.

TDS’ers: Making China great again!
Click to expand...

TDSers also are furiously trying to defend Putin's oil income too by blocking USA production in Alaska.
 
Cardinal said:
The reason it's problematic for a future DOJ to prosecute Trump is because it's almost impossible to make a compelling argument that it's not politically motivated. I know I'm bringing up quaint ideas from an earlier bygone era, but remember when it was shocking when Trump said that if elected he would have his DOJ prosecute Clinton? And you know how his DOJ is behaving corruptly now to act as Trump's personal lawyer? Well, it doesn't get any better when it's your guy's turn to use the DOJ to go after the last President, and Holder understands this.

And yes, I'm well aware of how frustrating that is when you know goddamn well that Trump broke a zillion laws.
Click to expand...

Democrats do not have good discernment. They see nothing wrong with ignoring real democrat crimes or inventing non-existing republican crimes.
 
Athanasius68 said:
When Mueller issued his report, he said there were no sealed indictments.
tick... tick...tick indeed.
Its over.
Click to expand...

Mueller doesn't speak for SDNY.

tick... tick... tick...
 
Athanasius68 said:
As per the article, it was Mueller who placed the file.

tick.. tick..tick.. not
Click to expand...

Not sure what article you're reading.

The sealed document was filed in a case brought against Cohen by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
Click to expand...

tick... tick... tick...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom